There is proper evidentiary support for a hearing panel’s determination that respondent did not violate his ethical duty to explain matters in a manner that allowed his client to make informed decisions about pursuing post-conviction relief in a criminal case.

The stipulation contains respondent’s admission to the allegations of misconduct ... showing that on May 27, 2014, respondent was convicted by guilty plea of the misdemeanor offenses of larceny between $200-$1,000 and breaking and entering without permission, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 179 days, effective May 1, 2015, as stipulated by the parties.

Based on respondent’s default, the hearing panel found that she neglected three legal matters, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of her clients, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a).